I've heard in Las Vegas, there is a tunnel under a freeway where 300-400 people live.

__________________

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

True story, but more like every tunnel. They also make "houses" in the underground drainage canals below the strip because they almost never flood. Water always gets diverted to side canals so those are perfect for them. But yeah, like you said, they live next to freeways and in the outskirts of the city.

In some cases people are stubborn enough to prefer their slum homes that they already have to something they didn't ask for and they will have to pay for it...

Many times when the kids grow up and get a job (as bad paid as they can be) families start getting a bit more money and start "building/improving" their houses so when the goverment decides to tear it all down and build some new houses or apartments for them, they reject it.

These might be badly built, ugly, unsafe, unhygienic, impractical and totally illegal but they worked for years to build them up:

So some people don't accept these houses that they have to pay for them and that are not neceserally better built or better socially speaking:

Another thing to remember is that for some, it is also taking some of their "liberties" away. I'm not talking about the normal ones, I'm talking about them been able to steal water or electricity away from the city. In most cases, as it it is for example in Mexico, people steal electricity, Cable, internet, Water, etc. If you re organize them to where the government can better control them, all those benefits go away and they won't be able to pay or obtain them.

What I never understood about these kind of slums in Brazil, and other countries, is is how did they come into being in the first place? Why were they allowed to be built? America is full of poor people but there are no slums because no one can build a slum. You can't just go to a plot of land and start building yourself a shack. You immediately get arrested for trespassing, whether it is private of government land. So why did the government and property owners allow these slums to develop in the first place?

So I still don't understand how these slums work. Do the people that simply started building on the land, now own the land? And if the government builds these new buildings, do the people have to buy them from the gov, or are they given an apartment at no cost, other than paying rent?

Slums never made sense to me. How did they come into existence and why were they allowed?

Partly, due a cultural thing: Americans are way more attached to their properties than Brazilians. In our system, we talk about the "social function of the private property".

So, think of a land in the middle of the city (which grew insanely between 1950-1990) with some sort of discussion over it in a court (a difficult succession, for instance). You have a recipe for a new slum. Of course today new slums are very very rare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

I live in the US now but I'm originally from Eastern Europe, and I've never seen that ever in Europe or America. To build on any land you must first provide proof that the land is yours, and if you can't you will be forcefully removed by the police, and of course if you resist, you get arrested.

In Brazil, if people invade your land (rural or urban, whatever) you can't just call the police to get them removed. You must have a court order to do that.

What I never understood about these kind of slums in Brazil, and other countries, is is how did they come into being in the first place? Why were they allowed to be built? America is full of poor people but there are no slums because no one can build a slum. You can't just go to a plot of land and start building yourself a shack. You immediately get arrested for trespassing, whether it is private of government land. So why did the government and property owners allow these slums to develop in the first place?

So I still don't understand how these slums work. Do the people that simply started building on the land, now own the land? And if the government builds these new buildings, do the people have to buy them from the gov, or are they given an apartment at no cost, other than paying rent?

Slums never made sense to me. How did they come into existence and why were they allowed?

Well, I don't pretend to be an expert on the issue but you need to look at the long term history there. Many city centers and old villages in Europe or even in North America (a cliche example: think of the frontier boom towns of the 19th century) were de-facto constructed as "slums" were: informal and precarious self-construction that have been maintained and bettered with time and are now "proper" housing, sometimes the most desired and most expensive in a given urban area. This is something very important to keep in mind as it shows that what is a "slum" and what isn't is relative.

Asking yourself "how were they allowed" and comparing the issue with today's USA is an error because: 1) you are comparing incomparable situations, the USA today finished experiencing mass rural exodus a very long time ago (isn't the last one the afro-american migrations from the rural south to the northern cities in the 60s?). 2) the law and authorities can prevent a few dozens people from settling up somewhere "illegally", it's not the same when they are dealing with a historical wave of 1000s new people trying to settle in every month or week, doubling the population of the city every 4 years. A place like Lima, Peru, went from being a mid-sized mainly oligarchical city with a population of 300 000 in the 40s to a 5 million metropolis in the 70s and a 9million one today. This in a city that had no structures to house to incoming population, very few resources to engage in a housing construction and little political will to do so. The question should thus be: how could there have NOT been any slums built?

Now when cities such as Paris or New York got the bunk of their inhabitants through mass rural exodus migrations, they did somewhat have "slums" being constructed. However, not to the same extend, because authorities or employers took care of the housing needs of the new populations (often by providing very cheap and precarious housing though). There are many examples. Madrid during the 60s had huge "chabolas", ie areas similar to brazilian "favelas" or the working class areas of north africa but the political regime managed the whole thing by constructing housing projects all around the city. This is easier to do in cities/countries where the population growth is absorbed by parallel industrialization: this is what happened in western europe during the 19th century, in soviet/communist countries during the 20th century or in China nowadays.

This was and is not the case in many African or latin-American cities during the 20th century, where - especially from the 80s onward - their economies became "open" and specialized in export of raw natural resources and many of them were strongly indebted to the IMF. There was little to no private industrial sector constructing cheap housing to house the incoming population such as in 19th century Paris or London, or 21th century Shanghai.... and no public sector constructing housing projects.

What I never understood about these kind of slums in Brazil, and other countries, is is how did they come into being in the first place? Why were they allowed to be built? America is full of poor people but there are no slums because no one can build a slum. You can't just go to a plot of land and start building yourself a shack. You immediately get arrested for trespassing, whether it is private of government land. So why did the government and property owners allow these slums to develop in the first place?

So I still don't understand how these slums work. Do the people that simply started building on the land, now own the land? And if the government builds these new buildings, do the people have to buy them from the gov, or are they given an apartment at no cost, other than paying rent?

Slums never made sense to me. How did they come into existence and why were they allowed?

Sadly in some cases yes ...
They've been there for so long that at some point they demand to the government to make those lands theirs even if they "stole" them one day from the government or someone else... Doing so, they get electricity, running water, gas, etc, but they demand it at a lower cost, almost free, because they're "poor" and need "help".

It's a very complex situation but if the authorities had banned or arrested those people from the very beginning we wouldn't have slums nowadays...

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

A political party is asking the Mexican senate to authorize a measure that would make it tougher for public officials to allow or give permission to those seeking to build or "develop" on endangered or unauthorized locations. This is in response to the growing number of unfit projects which undergo every year in the country. It is estimated that over 80,000 new homes are build in Mexico on these areas according to the article. If passed, officials who grant permission would face years in prison and/or a sanction equal to 30 to 300 times the national minimum wage.

Well, I don't pretend to be an expert on the issue but you need to look at the long term history there. Many city centers and old villages in Europe or even in North America (a cliche example: think of the frontier boom towns of the 19th century) were de-facto constructed as "slums" were: informal and precarious self-construction that have been maintained and bettered with time and are now "proper" housing, sometimes the most desired and most expensive in a given urban area. This is something very important to keep in mind as it shows that what is a "slum" and what isn't is relative.

Housing might have been precarious, but virtually every frontier town in US had a street plan from the beginning (fitting those wide streets), and some sense or titles to the land. Land plots were, of course, extremely cheap. So this is a different starting point than cliff-hanging slums in Lima, Rio de Janeiro or else. You didn't have haphazard (lack of) street plans that you have in those Latin American slums.

Quote:

This was and is not the case in many African or latin-American cities during the 20th century, where - especially from the 80s onward - their economies became "open" and specialized in export of raw natural resources and many of them were strongly indebted to the IMF. There was little to no private industrial sector constructing cheap housing to house the incoming population such as in 19th century Paris or London, or 21th century Shanghai.... and no public sector constructing housing projects.

Leave the IMF alone, it has nothing to do with lack of urban policies.

Yes I know. But anoldblackmarble was saying such things don't exist in the western world. There are always those few wich are misplaced and the fall through the mazes of the social net. Like the Roma's in Europe wich don't have a country, in quite a lot of cases don't have a nationality and thus are illegal everywhere.

In the case of the USA, much more people do, but if they have the strengt they still can make a living somehow. In many european countries when the social net doesn't catches you, wich is little seen but there are always those few, you're just done with it and pretty much don't exist.

@Suburbanist. Leave the IMF alone? That's a curious expression for you to use, as if I was bullying a weak person in the street

Anyways, structural adjustment plans of the 70s and 80s forced upon states due to their debt certainly prevented governments from realizing wide-scaled social housing projects such as those seen in Europe at the same time.

As for the difference between south American or African 'informal' districts and US boom towns of the 19th century that you pointed out: they can be true (although it's not always the case, most of Lima's "barriadas" followed a grid patern for example, check the "villa el salvador" area on google earth for a clear example (you can also check ciudad Neza near Mexico city or Madina, Ghana for other cases) whereas "formal" and legal urbanism can follow no grid logic at all: a clear example is the sprawl along the south-eastern french coast:

1) Villa el salvador: impoverished and precarious, but organized along a grid patern to help further urbanization and stabilisation of these areas

2) South-east french coast: wealthy, solid and legal. But the urbanism is completely random

This is just an example to show that legality, wealth and smart urban organization are not necessarily correlated.

Nonetheless as I said, there are of course differences: one of them being the fact that the settlers in the western US had the State (ie "government", using US jargon), thus the law, behind them to support their actions and settlements whereas the rural to urban migrations that happened massively during the 20th century in many African and south American cities were ignored by local authorities.

Hey guys, great conversations. But we should throw in some actual slum redevelopment projects in at least sometimes

__________________

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

you want to fight against the growing of slums? pay the working class better wages. a person who works like a slave only to get payed slave wages, would never be able to afford paying for a rent, much less try to buy a house. the banks would never even lend to people with low income, anyway. many slum inhabitants are not unemployed, they are just poorly payed. people have to choose between starving or trying to get a roof over their heads... and judging by the fotos, everybody can guess what they chose.